Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,337   Posts: 1,537,597   Online: 1117
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    Jadedoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lexington KY
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    147
    Images
    3
    I also vote for the possibility of XTOL sudden death. I loved that developer, but just couldn't keep up with it sometimes.
    Vincent Purcell
    Lexington KY Photographer + Media Artist
    http://vincenttpurcell.com

  2. #12
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    The TMX films are noticeably finer grained than their Delta counterparts. That will show up in areas of featureless density such as skies.

    I've got tests on this I can post if it will be of interest to anybody.

    How is a 16x20" print from a 6x7cm negative a 3x enlargement??
    Frankly, hard to notice, Michael, at least with Rollei RLS and even XTOL. Delta does seems to give better separation and detail even though it can resolve at 65 lp/mm compared to 80 for TMX. Anyway, assuming proper development in a fine grain developer, the limiting factor is always lenses, focus, and motion blur if not using a tripod.

    Interesting article by Erwin Puts here..http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/page123/page123.html

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,641
    I find it noticeable (depending on enlargement factor of course - enlarging a 6x7cm negative to 16x20" is enough to show the differences). Although as with all variables there is a tradeoff. The smaller, thicker Delta grains (compared to TMAX) mean slightly more prominent grain, but they are slightly easier to print than TMAX when it comes to highlight detail. But in essence I agree with you these differences are small.

  4. #14
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,253
    Images
    297
    Shoot a roll of Delta 100 and a roll of TMX side by side, with the same lighting and subject matter.

    Only then can you find out whether that is a difference of the films, or how they were processed.

    To me, TMX has always looked 'softer' than almost any other film out there, due to its ultra smooth grain.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  5. #15
    MaximusM3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    756
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Shoot a roll of Delta 100 and a roll of TMX side by side, with the same lighting and subject matter.

    Only then can you find out whether that is a difference of the films, or how they were processed.

    To me, TMX has always looked 'softer' than almost any other film out there, due to its ultra smooth grain.
    I always said, if I got to shoot TMX, might as well shoot digital. Soft, flat, and boring. The absence of grain doesn't make it any more appealing. Delta 100 is a lot better for my eyes.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,641
    Wow. I don't even know what to say anymore. I'm outta here.
    Last edited by Michael R 1974; 11-11-2011 at 03:54 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    204
    Sorry to hear about your problems. Are you sure it's the film+developer combo itself, though?

    Ilford Delta 100 in XTOL 1+1 is the only thing I've ever used, and I've never had any problem with it. No sudden death or anything questionable at all.

    Basically, I follow a personalized version of Kodak's recommended agitation technique: A) 3 initial inversions, and then I let the tank sit for the remainder of the first 30 seconds B) after the first 30 seconds, 3 more inversions and then C) 3 inversions every 30 seconds thereafter.

    In side-by-side comparisons, I find the film+developer combo sharper than my $3,000+ Nikon DSLR system. I've never seen any obvious grain. Plus, I get far better dynamic range -- especially in the highlights. I've even rated it at EI 125 (and sometimes EI 160), developed it for 9 minutes at 68F and I still get more shadow detail than I want.

    I wish I could compare it to T-Max and print it really big to do my own comparisons. But, unfortunately, I just don't have the equipment to do so.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Jadedoto View Post
    I also vote for the possibility of XTOL sudden death. I loved that developer, but just couldn't keep up with it sometimes.
    He could always do a clip test and find out for sure.

  9. #19
    mrred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    660
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon D. View Post
    He could always do a clip test and find out for sure.
    I have only experienced 'Sudden Death' once. I had a batch of xtol that was just over a year old. I used a working 1ltr bottle and kept the rest in a tightly sealed 4ltr bottle. When it came time to use the last ltr, I did a strip test and it passed. I then processed a roll and it came out blank. That was about as sudden as you can get.

    Then I used dilute (1:2) quantities and with drum processing only 150ml per roll (one shot). For the cost, it wasn't worth stretching it out that long and introducing a failure. I now use it replenished, which consumes more total xtol. It does give me the same dev times and I use 5ltr in about 6 months.

    Note that the 'Sudden Death' is just that. The grain mentioned in this thread can not happen from this. XTol is kinda digital, good and then not and no in between. I would suspect the freshness of the film / exposure, before anything else.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by MaximusM3 View Post
    [...] might as well shoot digital. Soft, flat, and boring. The absence of grain doesn't make it any more appealing.
    ... or might as well be out there drawing cartoons.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin